The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Should we cure HIV+ who didn't use condom?

N

new86

Sex God
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
507
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Lugano
Hello guys, so this i a veery provocative question, it came on my mind reading about people on here who openly admit they don't use condoms.

Do you think that we should *not* cure people who got HIV because they wanted to have bareback sex and let themself alone? I mean, i know in the US healt care program is not universal but I don't know what HIV+ policy is, but in Europe healt care is generally payed by every citizen with normal taxes or paying a fixed amount every month (as in Switzerland where I live). This means that everyone has to pay for people who openly risked their lives... so it is really correct to pay for them? THEY caused themself damage, why should everyone pay for this?

Discuss!

ps: two points:
1 I am not saying we should not pay... i just ask for opinions.
2. I come from a socialist-basis (European meaning of it, the concept is different in English language... in E we mean that the the ones who can have more give a little amount of their money to the State, which uses this money for programs to help less lucky people + The state controls in different ways from country to country some point of economics... for example general public services as health, railways, post are partially or totally state's business) I DON'T MEAN COMMUNISM or DICTATORSHIP or anything connected to this!
 
Once governments decide to let people die it isn't such a leap to euthanasia in order to limit the spread of infection.
 
And if they got HIV through non-consensual sex? Or a failed condom? Or some other means? Sucks to be them?

Lex
 
Should we cure pedestrians who weren't looking where they were going when they got knocked down?

How about smokers who get cancer? Fat people who get diabetes? Athletes who get ligament damage?
Skiers without helmets who hit trees?
Drinkers who get liver disease?

Do you see a pattern yet? ](*,)
 
levenshulme31 said:
Should we cure pedestrians who weren't looking where they were going when they got knocked down?

How about smokers who get cancer? Fat people who get diabetes? Athletes who get ligament damage?
Skiers without helmets who hit trees?
Drinkers who get liver disease?

Do you see a pattern yet? ](*,)
Click to expand...

I was just about to type the same thought. ..|
 
Both my moral and my practical alarms are going off here.

My moral alarm is ringing because where do you stop? Smoking can cause a lot of things. Should we bar all smokers from treatment for every single one of those diseases? And what about people who are overweight (and I'm not just talking about the grossly obese, but about anyone whose BMI is 25+)? There's lots of risky behaviour out there that can cause all kinds of things.
(I swear I was typing this while everybody above me was replying ;))

From a practical standpoint: it's impossible to implement. How can you distinguish between someone who has unprotected sex five times a week and someone who was unlucky enough to have the condom break? You don't have bareback-slut HIV and bad-luck HIV, it's all the same type.


One last thing: I wouldn't call this a pointless thread, since there are people who really do feel this is morally just. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few JUBbers in that group...
 
Looks like I dont need to rant. All of you have done it for me.

this dumbass thread needs to be closed.
 
Even considering such a thing is cruel and just an atrocity. You're no better than those who say you can't donate blood 'cause you're a fag (being a fag is an option, remember?).
 
I believe that once you get into a hospital you should not be judged and should be given all the care that you need.
 
^ And now would be a good time to quote a bit from the original post:

Shystud86 said:
1 I am not saying we should not pay... i just ask for opinions.
Click to expand...

He's asking a hypothetical question, people. Don't jump down his throat for it.
 
^^ it may be a hypothetical question but giving the question a couple of seconds of thought and consideration would have negated the need to ask it in the first place.
 
levenshulme31 said:
^^ it may be a hypothetical question but giving the question a couple of seconds of thought and consideration would have negated the need to ask it in the first place.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I know some people think smokers should be denied treatment, should they ever get lung cancer. This would be the HIV version of that. Like I said: I wouldn't be surprised if there were JUBbers who agreed with this.
 
Choosing who does and does not get healthcare based on their lifestyle choices would be a VERY slippery slope. Government would soon have total power.
 
it was just an hypotetical question... because i am willing to help anyone in needs i just don't get why lots of people put themselves in the condition of making other pay for their wrong behaviour. It was intended to be a sort of "philosophical" question...

thanks to the guy who called me stupid. I appreciate being called names by people who does not read well whar I write.

to the guy who said that doing that we would not arrest the spread of HIV... notice that if EVERYONE for 2/3 generations will use condoms, HIV will be eliminated in Western world. It is a stupid, weak virus. It does not survive more then 2/3 hrs out of the body.
 
Coming soon, no treatment for cancer patients who smoked all their lives. No treatment for the morbidly obese because they ate too much and for the women out there who have breast cancer who didn't go for regular screenings? Tough luck, you should have taken better care of yourself. Better luck in your next life?
 
Or the drunk driver who slams into a tree and is in critical condition

Or the guy who robs a bank and is shot while trying to get away

or treat a person who is shooting off illegal fireworks and burns themselves severely

....where does it end?
 
Shystud86 said:
it was just an hypotetical question... because i am willing to help anyone in needs i just don't get why lots of people put themselves in the condition of making other pay for their wrong behaviour. It was intended to be a sort of "philosophical" question...

thanks to the guy who called me stupid. I appreciate being called names by people who does not read well whar I write.

to the guy who said that doing that we would not arrest the spread of HIV... notice that if EVERYONE for 2/3 generations will use condoms, HIV will be eliminated in Western world. It is a stupid, weak virus. It does not survive more then 2/3 hrs out of the body.
Click to expand...

Weak in some regards and able to evolve and adapt therefore maybe not so weak, and likely will become more vigorous in some form or strain as time goes on.
Luckily not airborne but smarter then the average virus just not spread as easy.
I think it dies quicker once in the air then you describe above.

Yet there are other forms of std's which kill, they killed hundreds of years ago and continue today even with successful treatment & condoms they are still huge social problems, disfiguring, & debilitating.
A condom I don't think will take HIV off the globe, it is not the entire answer.
 
It's a horrendous concept not to treat someone on the basis that they could have prevented whatever misfortune that befell them. It's the same as refusing to treat someone that's been in a pile-up because they weren't wearing a seatbelt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top